Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 
AMY DA FITZINGER, 1843 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES) : PROPOSED 
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 229 
By Hobart M. Smith {Department of Zoology and Museum of 
Natural History, University of Illinois, Urhana, Illinois) and 
Philip W. Smith {Natural History Survey, Urhana) 
The proper generic name for the Three-clawed Softshell turtles of the 
Americas and of the Eastern Hemisphere has been debated for 50 or 60 years, 
the chief competitors being Amyda and Trionyx. A related Indian genus of 
Hinged Softshells has similarly been Icnown since 1931 sometimes as Trionyx, 
sometimes Lissemys. A third genus of Malayan softshells, commonly known 
by the generic name Dogania, is also involved in the confusion of names. An 
excellent history of the nomenclatural confusion is given by Stejneger, one 
of the principal participants (1944, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 94 : 5-8). His 
conclusions were not universally accepted, however, and a number of dissenting 
and confirmatory discussions followed. Conant and Goin (1948, Occ. Papers, 
Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 510 : 11-16) re-assayed the problem and submitted 
the case to the Commission first in 1946. Correspondence wdth Mr. Francis 
Hemming, then Secretary of the Commission, on seemingly endless ramifications 
of the case gradually flagged, and the Conant-Goin proposal accordingly was 
never completed to the satisfaction of the editors of the Bidletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature. 
In 1958, Dr. Robert Webb, then at the University of Kansas and engaged 
in a study of American softshells, requested the Committee on Nomenclature, 
of which the senior author was then chairman, of the American Society of 
Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, to review the case. The Conant-Goin 
proposal was then exhumed but again the editorial task proved overwhelming 
until, in recent months, it became apparent that appearance of the revised 
(1961) Code would be an essential prelude to a satisfactory presentation of the 
case. 
Since much of the original Conant-Goin proposal is now superseded, 
Drs. Conant, Goin and Webb, and the Assistant Secretary to the International 
Commission, Dr. W. E. China, have recommended the formulation of a new 
proposal. I am indebted to all these gentlemen, and to IMr. Richard V. 
Melville, for their assistance with seemingly controversial points and in many 
other ways. 
1. The earliest usage of Amyda, as pointed out by Conant and Goin (1948 : 
12) occiu-s in Geoflfroy St. HUaire, July 1809 {Nouv. Bull. Sci. Philom. Paris 
22 : 363) who includes the name in the sjTionymy of Triojiyx javanicus, in the 
combination "Amyda Javanicus, par. M. Schweigger, dans un manuscrit 
communique a ITnstitut ". Geoffroy republished the same information in 
August of 1809 {Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 14 : 15). 
The 1961 Code explicitly (Art. lid) excludes from availabihty any name 
first published as a synonym, as of that date ; therefore only by use of the 
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 20, Part 2. AprU, 1963. 
122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
plenary powers of the Commission could Amyda be rendered available as of 
Greoffroy, 1809 ; it is a nomen nudum as of that date and work. Unless the 
plenary powers are invoked to validate Amyda Geoffroy, 1809, all discussions 
of its type and author (Stejneger, 1944, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 94 : 7, for 
example, attributing Amyda to Schweigger in Geoflfroy) are inconsequential. 
If Amyda Geoffroy were, however, to be validated, its type, unless otherwise 
fixed by the Commission, would be Amyda javanica Geoffroy since that was 
the only specific name associated wth the name Amyda. 
2. In the same works by Geoff'roy in 1809, and on the same pages, the nominal 
genus Trionyx was first proposed, but this was the name accepted by Geoffroy, 
whereas Amyda was merely a cited synonym. 
In both accounts Geoffroy included eight nominal species in his new genus 
Trionyx, but none can be construed as having been designated in any way as 
type of the genus although in the August 1809 work, in the explanation of the 
figures o£ aegyptiacus (p. 20), it is stated that " Le trionyx d'Egypte, represente 
planche I, vue en dessous et de cote, nous dormant une idee exacte du port 
et des caracteres generiques des trionyx . . . ". The 1961 Code (p. 63) expHcitly 
states, however, that in cases like the example "A-us b-u^ is a typical example 
of the genus A-us ", certainly including the Trionyx situation, there is no type- 
designation. This is precisely what Stejneger concluded in 1905 (Science, 
n.s. 21 : 228-229) and in 1944 (Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 94 : 6-7) ; Wermuth 
and Mertens (1961, Schildkroten, Krokodile, Briichenechsen : xxiii) agreed 
that Stejneger's analysis actually was correct, but felt impelled to follow what 
they regarded as the majority view, namely that Geoffroy did designate 
aegyptiacus the type. Schmidt (1953, Check List N. Amer. Amphs. Repts. : 108) 
vehemently stated the case for the latter view, opining that Geoffroy's statement 
was sufficient for type designation and that Stejneger was motivated not by 
concern for a stable nomenclature but " by his known personal animus against 
Boulenger ". Loveridge and Williams (1957, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. 115 : 
422-423) also follow the Schmidt view, " believing that Geoffroy, when citing 
T. aegyptiacus as giving an exact idea of the habitus and generic characters of 
Trionyx, was consciously and with full intent designating the tjrpe of that 
genus. Admittedly the word ' type ' was not used by Geoffroy, but we must 
point out that no species except the genotjrpe can give an exact idea of the 
habitus and generic characters of a genus, and that this is the sole function 
and meaning of a genotype ". Malcolm Smith (1931, Fauna British India, 
Eept. Amph., vol. 1, Loricata, Testudines : 154, 156-7, 165) is another influential 
author of the same mind. 
Whatever Stejneger's motivation may have been, and despite the arguments 
of Smith, Schmidt, Loveridge and Wilhams, the 1961 Code leaves no doubt 
that Stejneger's conclusion is now to be considered correct and that only by 
exercise of the plenary powers of the Commission can a designation subsequent 
to Geoffroy be set aside. 
3. The next event was the usage of Amyda in 1811 by Oppel (1811, Ordn. 
Fam. Gatt. Rept. : 7). The name was mentioned only in an introductory 
section, however, and was not accepted in the text or even listed there as a 
synonym. The Oppel citation can scarcely be regarded as vaUdating Amyda 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 
since the name was not there accepted — its usage is certainly of no greater 
significance than as a synonym, if even that. The name can scarcely be 
considered available as of the 1961 Code, under the article (lid) that rules 
out Amyda Geoflfroy. 
4. Next in chronological order is the use of Amyda b}' Oken in 1816 (Lehrb. 
Nat. 3(2) : 348). Several species were assigned to the genus, none designated 
as type. Oken's work has been ruled as unavailable for the purposes of 
zoological nomenclature in Opinion 417 (1956) ; only by exercise of the plenary 
powers could Amyda be validated as of Oken. It is noteworthy that Savage 
(1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 183) was not of the opinion that the name 
need be conserved as of Oken. 
5. In the same work Oken (1816 : 348) recognized Trionyx, a monotypic 
genus by his treatment, including only the species granosa. Testudo granosa 
Schoepff, 1801, is a senior synonym of Trionyx coromandelicus Geoflfroy, 1809, 
and was cited in the synonymy of coromandelicus by Geoflfroy. The action 
is fortunately immaterial since Oken's work has been declared null and void 
(see preceding paragraph). 
6. In 1828, as pointed out solely by Loveridge and WilUams {loc. cit.), 
Bory de St. Vincent {Resume d'Erpetologie oti d'Histoire naturelle des Reptiles : 77) 
states that Geoflfroy fixed aegyptiacus as type of Trionyx : " C'est au celebre 
professeur Geoflfroy de Saint-Hilaire que Ton doit I'etablissement de ce genre 
dont le type fut une tres singuliere tortue du NU que nous avons fait representer 
dans notre planche 6e ". The name Trionyx aegyptiacus appears on the legend 
for the plate cited. Article 69a(ii) of the 1961 Code clearly requires that 
Bory de St. Vincent's statement be accepted as a tjrpe-designation for Trionyx : 
" In the absence of a prior valid type -designation for a nominal genus, an 
author is considered to have designated one of the originally included nominal 
species as type-species, if he states that it is the type (or type-species) for 
whatever reason, right or wrong, and if it is clear that he himself accepts it as 
the type -species." Unquestionably these provisions are met by Bory de St. 
Vincent, who thereby becomes the first subsequently to designate the type- 
species of Trionyx. 
7. So far as we can determine, the first acceptable proposal of Amyda 
occurred in 1835 (Fitzinger, Ann. Wiener Mus. 1 : 110, 120, 127). Three 
species were included {subplanus, muticus, euphraticus), none designated as 
type- 
8. In 1843 Fitzinger {Syst. Rept. : 30) explicitly designated Trionyx sub- 
planus Geoflfroy, 1809, type of Amyda. Since this species was cited by Oken 
it is ehgible for fixation as type of his Amyda if the name were to be validated 
as of him, as well as for Fitzinger's Amyda. 
9. In the same work Fitzinger {loc. cit.) also explicitly designated " Trionyx 
granosus Schweigg " tjrpe of Trionyx. Since " Testxido granosa Schoepflf " 
is cited in the synonymy of Trionyx coromandelicus by Geoflfroy, 1809, it thus 
can be admitted as eligible for selection as type of the genus Trionyx. In 
reality, however, this designation is of course invalid since Bory de St. Vincent 
had already selected a type for the genus. Nevertheless since the latter 
designation has been generally overlooked, Fitzinger (1843) has been universally 
124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
regarded as the first designator of the type for Trionyx by those who rejected 
an original designation by Geoflfroy. 
10. If Fitzinger's (1843) type designation were to be accepted for both 
Amyda and Trionyx, both names would be removed from the genus including 
most species of softshells. The next available name as pointed out by 
Loveridge and WilHams (1957 : 420), is Aspidonectes of Wagler (1830, 
Natiirliches System der Amphibien : 134). Several species were included, 
none designated as type, but Fitzinger (1843 : 30) subsequently designated 
one of the included species, Trionyx aegyptiacxis Geoflfroy, as type, referring 
to it by the name of "Aspidonectes aegyptiacus Wagler ". 
11. Since, as has been shown possible by Boulenger (1889, Cat. Chelonians 
British Mus. : 245-246), Loveridge and WiUiams (op. cit. : 417) and Malcolm 
Smith {op. cit. : 165-166), the American section of softshells might be regarded 
in the future as generically distinct, the earliest generic name having an American 
species as type is of importance. It is, as pointed out by Webb (1962, Misc. 
Puhl. Univ. Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist. 13 : 483, 491), either Apalone or Mesodeca, 
both proposed in 1832 by Rafinesque {Atlantic Joiirn. 1 : 64), with their type- 
species respectively Apalone hudsonica { = Trionyx spinijerus Lesueur) and 
Mesodeca hartrami { = Trionyx ferox Schneider), both by monotj^y. Neither 
name has been selected over the other ; in fact neither has ever been used since 
originally proposed, so far as we are aware. Furthermore, both names were 
based in part or entirely on a description by Bartram in his Travels (Webb, 
loc. cit.), a work placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works 
in Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion 447, 1957), and, for that reason, were 
not considered by Webb {in litt.) to be the earliest names available for their 
type-species {Platypeltis instead of Mesodeca, and Callinia instead of Apalone, 
Webb, op. cit. : 485, 488). Finally, if the nomen oblitum rule were observed, 
neither of Rafinesque's names could be used in the future, whether otherwise 
available or not. Accordingly the earliest name admissible under the 1961 
Code, wth an American species as type, is Platypeltis Fitzinger, 1835 {Ann. 
Wiener Mus. Naturgeschichte 1 : 109, 120, 127), type Testudo ferox Schneider 
by subsequent designation in Fitzinger, 1843 {op. cit. : 30). 
12. It has long been common practice to place the some 22 forms involved 
in the present nomenclatural confusion in three genera. As reviewed by 
Wermuth and Mertens {op. cit.) the Malayan Softshells {Dogania Gray, 1844) 
include one species, suhplana (Geoflfroy, 1809) ; the Indian Hinged Softshells 
{Lissemys, M. Smith, 1931) include one species, punctata (Lacepede, 1788), 
with three subspecies, punctata (Lacepede, 1788), granosa (Schoepff, 1801) 
\vith coromandelicus Geoffroy, 1809 a junior synonym, and scutata (Peters, 
1868) ; and the Three-clawed Softshells {Trionyx Geoflfroy, 1809) of Africa, 
the Near East, Asia, North America and Mexico, include some 18 forms, 
among them triunguis (Forskal, 1775) of which aegyptiacus Geoflfroy, 1809 
is a junior synonym, and cartilaginea (Boddaert, 1770) of which javanicus 
Geoflfroy, 1809, is a junior synonym. 
There is some variation among herpetologists in generic allocation of 
these species, the most common one being the amalgamation of the Malayan 
and the Three-clawed Softshells {e.g. Loveridge and WiUiams, op cit.). The 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 
account presented by the latter authors provides for the clear inference that 
if Dogania is recognised the Three-clawed Softshells with equal validity should 
be partitioned into as many as five genera, one of which would be composed 
of all the American species. There is no disagreement on segregation generically 
of the Indian Hinged Softshells. 
13. The influence of each of the several interpretations of type-fixation 
for the three commonly recognised genera of Softshells involved in the present 
context upon the nomenclature of these genera is depicted in Table 1, using 
vernacular names for identification of the taxa defined in the preceding 
section 12. The first nomenclatural combination is unquestionably the most 
popular at the present time, although the automatic provisions of the 1961 
Code do not justify use of Dogania. The Stejnegerian analysis, certainly 
correct as of the Code in force when he wrote, is the second combination ; this 
analysis was valid at the time of, and was followed in, the synoptic checklist 
of turtles by Mertens and Wermuth in 1955 {Zool. Jarhb., Syst., 83 : 323-440). 
E. R. Dunn, Francis Hemming, Conant and Goin all subscribed to the validity 
of this view. The fourth nomenclatural combination is the one that would 
now be in use by adoption of the automatic provisions of the 1961 Code. 
In reality. Amy da has never been used in a strict sense for Dogania (com- 
bination 3 and 4 of Table 1), although the single species of Dogania has fre- 
quently been lumped with the Three-clawed Softshells which in turn often 
have been termed Amyda. Likewise Aspidonectes has not been used at all 
for more than 25 years, and seldom for 25 years before that, although both 
Amyda and Trionyx have been used frequently for the Three-clawed softshells. 
Lissemys has been used frequently since it was proposed in 1931 for the Indian 
Hinged Softshells, but occasionally Trionyx {e.g. Mertens and Wermuth, 1955) 
has been adopted. 
The question of a proper name for all three genera centers primarily upon the 
name for the Three-clawed Softshells. A definite decision on that genus would 
likely eliminate all question relative to the other genera. All considerations 
of the " proper " name for the Three-clawed Softshells hinge upon maintenance 
of the greatest possible stability through recourse to the plenary powers, for 
obviously application of the automatic provisions would be highly disturbing 
to current and readily understood practice. 
14. In this framework of thought, the " proper " and least controversial 
name-selection for the Three-clawed Softshells should be considered. The 
literature strongly indicates that Old World herpetologists would overwhelm- 
ingly favour use of Trionyx. In Loveridge and Williams (pp. cit. : 423-426) 
only five references (1919-1955) to the single African species use Amyda, 
whereas Trionyx is used by 42 references between 1900 and 1955, and 59 before 
1900. In the literature on Indian species Malcolm Smith {op. cit. : 167-179) 
shows that, until 1931, not a single reference to any of the eight species in that 
region had used Amyda for the genus ! The literature on Chinese species 
(Pope, 1935, Reptiles of China : 59-60) reveals only 7 of 45 references to that 
date for one species, and none of 3 references for the other species, using the 
generic name Amyda. 
So far as American herpetologists are concerned, we are not aware that either 
126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
name is now strongly favoured over the other, although Trionyx is more 
frequentl}^ encountered. Trionyx and Amyda have been used so completely 
interchangeablj^ Avith Aspidonectes and Platypeltis thrown in occasionally, 
that it makes little diflference which one becomes fixed. The favor Amyda 
does receive is based, we think, to a significant degree upon an unwarranted 
"feeling" of provincialism — Amyda seems more distmctively American 
whereas Trionyx is seemingly a more cosmopohtan grouping. Be that as it 
may, in Stejneger's monograph of American Amyda {op. cit., 1944), for the 
species mutica 27 references use Trionyx (1827-1923), 63 Amyda (1857-1942) ; 
for ferox, 30 use Trionyx (1812-1939), 20 Amyda (1816-1934), 8 Platypeltis 
(1843-1915), 8 Aspidonectes (1875-1935) ; for spinifera, 16 use Trionyx (1827- 
1913), 44 Aspidonectes (1857-1909), 5 Platypeltis (1893-1918), 66 Amyda 
(1911-1942) ; and for emoryi 7 use Trionyx (1889-1940), 8 Aspidonectes (1857- 
1910), 21 Amyda (1917-1939), 4 Platypeltis (1893-1928). Collectively this 
gives a total of 17 usages of Platypeltis, 60 of Aspidonectes, 80 of Trionyx, and 
170 of Amyda. Since 1942, when Stejneger ^vTote, there have been very few 
usages of Platypeltis and Aspidonectes. 
Recent issues of the Zoological Record record always at least twice and some- 
times as many as three times the usages of Trionyx as of Amyda, with the 
proportion holduig equally well for herpetologists in both hemispheres. 
15. All views considered, it appears least disturbing to existing custom 
to fix Trionyx for the Three-clawed Softshells, Dogania for the Malayan 
softshells, and Lissemys for the Indian Hinged Softshells. The automatic 
provisions of the 1961 Code akeady fix Trionyx as desired and leave Lissemys 
free for the Indian Hinged Softshells ; only the name Dogania requires invoca- 
tion of the plenary powers for its fixation, by elimination oi Amyda. Accordingly 
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclatm-e is requested : 
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Amyda Fitzinger, 
1843, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the 
Law of Homonymy ; 
(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology : 
(a) Lissemys Smith, 1931 (gender : feminine), type-species by original 
designation Testudo granosa Schoepflf, 1801 ; 
(b) Trionyx Greoffroy, 1809 (gender : mascuhne), tj^e-species by 
designation by Bory St. Vincent, 1828, Trionyx aegyptiacus 
Geoflfroy, 1809 ; 
(c) Dogania Gray, 1844 (gender : feminine), type-species by monotypy 
Trionyx subplanus GeofiFroy, 1809 ; 
(3) to place the follo\\'ing specific names on the Official List of Specific 
Names in Zoology : 
(a) granosa SchoepfF, 1801, as pubUshed in the binomen Testudo 
granosa (type-species of Lissemys Smith, 1931) ; 
(b) triunguis Forsk&l, 1775, as pubUshed in the binomen Testudo 
triunguis [oldest available name for the type-species of Trionyx 
Geofiroy, 1809] ; 
(c) subplanus Geofiroy, 1809, as pubUshed in the binomen Trionyx 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
127 
subplanus (type-species of Dogania Gray, 1844) ; and 
(4) to place the generic name Amyda Fitzinger, 1836, as suppressed under 
the plenary powers in (l)(a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected 
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 
Table I.— Nomenclature of three genera of softshells according to different 
type-fixations hitherto proposed 
Tj-pe-Fixation of 
Amyda Trionyx 
as of as of 
Indian 
Hinged 
Softshells 
1 GeofFroy 
{javanica) 
Geofiroy* Lissemys 
(aegyptiaciis) 
2 Geofiroy 
(javanica) 
Fitzinger 
(granosus) 
Trionyx 
3 Fitzinger 
(subplana) 
Fitzinger 
(granosus) 
Trionyx 
4 Fitzinger 
(suhplana) 
Geoff'roy* Lissemys 
(aegyptiacus) 
Tliree-clawed 
Softshells 
Amyda 
Aspidonectes 
Trionyx 
JIalaj'an 
Softshells*' 
Trionyx (Amyda Dogania 
a synonjin) 
Dogania 
Amyda 
Amyda 
* Or Bory de Vincent ; the end result is the same in either case. 
n,l* If *^%^^'^lfyan and Three-clawed Softshells were regarded as congeneric, in every case the 
name given for the latter would have senior status except%f course, in^the tMrd cS Xvd^ 
were regarded as vahd as of some date prior to that of Aspidonectes (1830) ^